Specifying the Enterprise and Information Viewpoints for a

Corporate Spatial Data Infrastructure using ICA’s Formal Model

Italo L. Oliveira1, Jugurta Lisboa-Filho1, Carlos A. Moura2, Alexander G. Silva2 1 Department of Informatics, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil

italo.oliveira@ufv.br, jugurta@ufv.br

2Companhia Energética de Minas Gerais (CEMIG), Belo Horizonte – MG – Brazil

camoura@cemig.com.br, ags@cemig.com.br

Keywords: Spatial Data Infrastructure, RM-ODP, Enterprise Viewpoint, Information Viewpoint

Abstract: The International Cartographic Association (ICA) has proposed a formal model to describe Spatial Data

Infrastructure (SDI) using three of the five viewpoints of the RM-ODP (Reference Model for Open

Distributed Processing) framework, which was later adapted by other researchers. However, the adapted

ICA model has not been validated for corporate-level SDI. The Companhia Energética de Minas Gerais

(Minas Gerais Power Company - Cemig) seeks to develop an SDI to aid in discovering and reutilizing

spatial data within and outside the corporation. The present study aimed to assess the use of the model

proposed by the ICA to specify corporate-level SDI using SDI-Cemig as a case study by describing the

viewpoints Enterprise and Information. These viewpoints from the adapted ICA model have proved

appropriate to describe SDI-Cemig, whose differences are due to the SDI’s peculiarities. Although a single

study cannot validate the ICA model for a whole SDI level, this research shows that the adapted ICA model

can be used to describe the viewpoints Enterprise and Information in corporate SDI.

1 INTRODUCTION

Geospatial data are those referenced in relation to

the ground surface and are essential to aid in an

organization’s decision-making and planning.

However, according to Nebert (2004) and Rajabifard

and Williamson (2001), geospatial data are a costly

resource both in time and money involved in

surveying them. In order to cut down the costs

associated with using and obtaining geospatial data,

the Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) concept was

created.

There are several definitions for SDI. Rajabifard

and Williamson (2001) define SDI as an

environment in which the users reach their goals by

using technologies and collaboration. Harvey et al.

(2012) consider the SDI a concept that aids in

sharing data and geospatial services among different

users of a given community.

In order to help share and discover geospatial

data and services, the SDIs are organized

hierarchically. Figure 1 presents the SDI hierarchy

and the nomenclatures used in the present study.

According to Hjelmager et al. (2008), the SDI

concept is very broad and leads to different forms of

development both at the organizational and technical

level, as pointed out by Cooper et al. (2013). Thus,

the International Cartographic Association (ICA) has

developed a model to describe SDI regardless of the

technologies or implementations (Hjelmager et al.,

2008), a concept that was later extended by Cooper

et al. (2011); Béjar et al. (2012); Cooper et al.

(2013); and Oliveira and Lisboa-Filho (2015).

However, the use of ICA’s formal model for SDI

has not been evaluated to develop corporate-level

SDI yet. The Companhia Energética de Minas

Gerais (Cemig) is a mixed-economy company

acting in the electricity sector composed of over 200

partners and controlled by the government of the

state of Minas Gerais (Brazil). Cemig seeks to

develop an SDI, named SDI-Cemig, to standardize

the processes that use the company’s geospatial data,

thus helping such data be shared and surveyed.

Figure 1: SDI hierarchy – Adapted from Rajabifard and

Williamson (2001) and Crompvoet (2001).

The present study presents the use of ICA’s

formal SDI model under SDI-Cemig’s specification

while detailing the viewpoints Enterprise and

Information and verifying whether this model allows

a corporate SDI to be appropriately described.

The remaining of the paper is structured as

follows. Section 2 describes ICA’s formal SDI

model, detailing the viewpoints Enterprise and

Information of an SDI. Section 3 presents the

specification of the viewpoints Enterprise and

Information for SDI-Cemig. Section 4 discusses the

results found in the present research, while Section 5

presents some final considerations of the study.

2 ICA’S FORMAL MODEL

According to Hjelmager et al. (2008), ICA’s formal

SDI model (henceforth called only formal model) is

a model that describes SDI regardless of

technologies, policies, or implementations. In order

to describe SDI, the ICA chose to use the RM-ODP

(Reference Model for Open Distributed Processing)

framework.

RM-ODP is an architectural framework

standardized by the International Organization for

Standardization/International Electrotechnical

Commission (ISO/IEC) that is able to describe

heterogeneous distributed processing systems by

using viewpoints (Farooqui, Logrippo and de Meer,

1995).

According to Raymond (1995), the use of the

viewpoint concept allows describing complex

distributed systems as smaller models, each of which

describes different relevant issues to different users

of the system. RM-ODP uses the following

viewpoints: Enterprise, Information, Computation,

Engineering, and Technology. Figure 2 presents the

five viewpoints and the relationship among them.

Figure 2: RM-ODP framework viewpoints – Adapted

from Hjelmager et al. (2008).

The viewpoint Enterprise describes the system’s

policies, scope, goal, and requirements for the

organization. The viewpoint Information details the

data semantics and the behavior in the system,

whose behavior will be restricted/determined by the

policies defined in the viewpoint Enterprise

(Farooqui, Logrippo and de Meer, 1995) (Hejlmager

et al., 2008). According to Cooper et al. (2013), the

viewpoint Computation describes the components

that make up the system and their interactions

through the interface with no concern about the

components’ physical distribution. The viewpoint

Engineering, according to Farooqui, Logrippo and

de Meer (1995), “identifies the requirements and

features needed for the system to support the model

described in the viewpoint Computation.” Finally,

the viewpoint Technology details the technological

devices used by the system.

ICA’s formal model describes only the

viewpoints Enterprise, Information, and

Computation. According to Hjelmager et al. (2008),

the viewpoints Engineering and Technology heavily

depend on the implementation and are not

considered in ICA’s model. The viewpoints

Enterprise and Information will be described in the

sub-sections below. The viewpoint Computation will

not be described since it is not relevant for this

study.

2.1 Enterprise Viewpoint

The viewpoint Enterprise, according to

Hjelmager et al. (2008), describes the actors and the

relation among the different parts of the system.

Figure 3 shows the relationship among the

different compounds that make up the SDI through a

diagram of UML classes. In the diagram, the SDI is

the central compound and its attributes are the scope

and a plan for its implementation. An SDI is formed

by products, which are in turn formed by geospatial

data and services from the SDI. The acquisition and

use of these products is the reason why a user will

use the SDI. Hence, the Product can be considered

the core part of the SDI (Hjelmager et al., 2008).

The Metadata will describe and be used by the

Product, and will be managed by the Processing

Tools to aid in the discovery and use of geospatial

data and services. The component Processing Tools

represents the systems that carry out some sort of

geospatial data processing and will connect to the

SDI through the component Connectivity, which will

use a certain Technology to perform its role.

Figure 3: Components that make up an SDI – Hjelmager et al. (2008).

According to Hjelmager et al. (2008), the

component Policies is responsible for defining the

policies that will restrict and determine the SDI’s

functioning and evolution. Although this component

is represented by a single class, the component

Policies may be specialized into several other

classes, which will be shown ahead.

The actors are individuals with a stake on the

SDI’s success and may use it or contribute to it.

Hjelmager et al. (2008) defined five main actors for

the SDI, which were expanded by Cooper et al.

(2011) and Béjar et al. (2012). However, there are

differences in semantics and terminology between

the actors by Hjelmager et al. (2008) and Cooper et

al. (2001) and those proposed by Béjar et al. (2012).

This same characteristic holds true regarding the

SDI’s policies.

Oliveira and Lisboa-Filho (2015) unified the

actors and policies proposed by the ICA with those

proposed by Béjar et al. (2012). This way, the

designers that may use ICA’s model will have a

single set of possible actors and policies, which

facilitates communication and knowledge exchange

among designers.

Figure 4 presents the six main actors an SDI may

have: User; Producer; Operational Body; Governing

Body; Broker; Value-Added Reseller; and Provider.

According to Oliveira and Lisboa-Filho (2015),

the User is the actor that will use the resources

offered by the SDI to reach his or her goals. The

Producer is responsible for producing the SDI’s data

and services while the Provider makes these data

and services available. The Governing Body is

responsible for the SDI’s administration and its

attributions include creating, changing, and

removing policies. The Broker’s role is to aid in the

negotiations between providers and users. The

Value-Added Reseller (VAR) modifies an existing

product and makes it available in the SDI as a new

product. Finally, the Operational Body is

responsible for all the technical side of the SDI’s

functioning. All actors are specialized to describe

their attributions in more details. The specializations

can be found in Oliveira and Lisboa-Filho (2015).

Table 1 presents the policies unified by Oliveira

and Lisboa-Filho (2015). The policies were

specialized into: Business Model, Promotion,

Standards, Education, and Constraints. The

descriptions and specializations of each type are

shown in Table 1.

2.2 Viewpoint Information

According to Hjelmager et al. (2008), the viewpoint

Information in the RM-ODP framework describes

the system data, from their semantics to their

behavior, which are regulated by the policies defined

in the viewpoint Enterprise. In the case of an SDI,

Hjelmager et al. (2008) consider as data the products

offered by the SDI, i.e., the geospatial data and

services.

Figure 5 describes the relationship of the

products with the other SDI components using the

UML class diagram. The class Product, for being

the most relevant object in the viewpoint

Information, is the center of the diagram. The class

Policies represents the policies defined in the

viewpoint Enterprise, which will restrict and target

the product specifications, which are represented by

the class Product Specification (Hjelmager et al.,

2008).

Figure 4: Main actors of an SDI after the unification –

Oliveira and Lisboa-Filho (2015).

Table 1: SDI policies after the unification – Oliveira and Lisboa-Filho (2015).

Policies Description

Business

Model

Governance Determines the decision-making process

Regulates the policy-creation process

Membership Determines the relationships among the SDI members

Quality Defines the quality levels established in the SDI

Access Determines how the SDI products can be accessed and who can do it

Role Assignment Defines the responsibilities (actor roles) of the SDI users

Funding Defines how the resources will be forwarded to develop and maintain the SDI

Promotion - How the SDI will be advertised

Standards - Defines the standards adopted by the SDI

Foundation Defines the main SDI products

Education - Determines the trainings the SDI users may take part in

Best Practices Practices that must be adopted by the users member of the SDI

Constraints

Legal Constraints Restrictions imposed by local laws of where the SDI is located

Business

Agreements Restrictions existing due to contract between companies

The Products are described by the metadata

(class Metadata) and both are recorded in catalogs

(class Catalog), which may contain other catalogs to

allow for a hierarchy to be created. The products can

be classified into ervices and data (either geospatial

or not). The data are used, aided by previous

knowledge, as a source of information, which may

generate new knowledge (Hjelmager et al., 2008).

3 SDI-CEMIG

As specified in Section 1, Cemig seeks to develop an

SDI to help share and use geospatial data in the

companies that make up the conglomerate. The

model adapted from the ICA was used to specify the

SDI-Cemig so as to guarantee that the basic SDI

concepts in the literature would be contemplated

during the specification phase. The sub-sections

below describe the viewpoints Enterprise and

Information of SDI-Cemig.

Figure 5: Class diagram for the viewpoint information – Hjelmager et al. (2008).

3.1 Viewpoint Enterprise

As described in sub-section 2.1, the ICA has

described the parts that make up the SDI and the

possible actors that may interact with it. The

components and actors were identified in SDI-

Cemig to check whether they properly describe

corporate SDI.

3.1.1 Components of SDI-Cemig

The SDI is considered the central element in

Figure 3 and has a scope and implementation plan

(Hjelmager et al., 2008). The scope of SDI-Cemig is

to make available online a set of geospatial layers

considered essential to the companies in the electric

sector and that may be used by Cemig’s employees

and clients, besides offering services to visualize and

discover geospatial data. The implementation plan of

SDI-Cemig will be publicized by the end of the

SDI’s development.

The component Product is made up of the SDI’s

geospatial data and services. SDI-Cemig has the data

of the geospatial layers considered basic for Cemig,

i.e., they are essential layers to the working of the

processes that involve geospatial data and are

described by the Foundation policies and detailed in

the conceptual model in sub-section 3.2.1.

SDI-Cemig must provide services for the

discovery, visualization, and recovery of geospatial

data, which must be compatible with the OGC

standards. The use of services based on the OGC

standards allows SDI-Cemig to interact with other

SDIs at different levels, such as the INDE

(Infraestrutura Nacional de Dados Espaciais –

National Spatial Data Infrastructure), the INSPIRE

(Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the

European Community), and the CGDI (Canadian

Geospatial Data Infrastructure). For a new service to

be considered compatible with the OGC standard, its

operations must follow the specifications proposed

in the documents provided by the OGC.

Although Figure 3 shows that the component

Product is self-related, since a service may generate

new data, SDI-Cemig has no processing service able

to produce new geospatial data at first.

The SDI products will be described by Metadata,

which are specified according to the Metadata

Geospatial do Brasil (Geospatial Metadata of Brazil

- MGB) profile (CONCAR, 2009). The MGB profile

defines the elements existing in the metadata that

describe the geospatial data to be introduced into the

INDE.

The metadata may be used by the Processing

Tools to help discover new geospatial data and

services and to obtain relevant information on them,

e.g., which features are offered by the services and

in which format the geospatial data is being made

available. In SDI-Cemig, the Processing Tools are

the legacy systems and desktop applications that use

the SDI’s geospatial data and services. Cemig has

several applications and legacy systems to process

geospatial data that are very important in the

company’s processes. The component Connectivity specifies how the

Processing Tools interact with the SDI, which is possible by using a Technology. Cemig’s legacy systems and desktop applications interact with SDI-

Cemig by exchanging files in the XML format using the GML standard as schema. Besides using files, the desktop applications can interact with SDI-Cemig through web services in case they are supported.

SDI-Cemig specifies at least one policy for each

type present in Table 1, except for Governance and

Business Agreements, which have no policy defined

yet. The policies will not be presented due to space

constraints. However, some policies will be pointed

out along the text.

3.1.2 Communities and Roles in SDI-Cemig

Besides the components in SDI-Cemig, the

viewpoint Enterprise specifies the communities that

make up the SDI and the possible roles they may

play to reach their goals.

A community is a concept of RM-ODP and is a

set of one or more entities that have similar behavior

and seek to reach a given common goal (Linington

et al., 2011). The behavior the communities may

take on are described through roles to facilitate them

being reused. In the case of SDI-Cemig, the possible

roles the communities may take on were described

by Hjelmager et al. (2008), Cooper et al. (2011), and

Béjar et al. (2012), were adapted and unified by

Oliveira and Lisboa-Filho (2015), and are used to

specify the communities.

Figure 6: Community Committee and its respective roles.

According to Linington et al. (2011), a

community is specified by the roles it can take on,

its possible behaviors, the enterprise objects it uses,

and the goal it must reach. This sub-section,

however, details only the roles they may take on and

whether these roles match the roles unified by

Oliveira and Lisboa-Filho (2015). Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9 present the communities

identified in Cemig’s environment and the roles they may take on when interacting with SDI-Cemig. In

Figure 6, the community Committee is formed by members of different sectors at Cemig, represented by the communities Representative, such as Information Technology (IT) and the sectors Generation, Transmission, and Distribution, and its attribution is to define the working of certain processes carried out by these sectors. Hence, the Committee takes on the roles of Legislator, Secretariat, and Policy Maker and is responsible for all of SDI-Cemig’s administrative area.

The community GIS Analyst (Figure 7) represents the IT individuals with positions homonymous to the community, who are responsible for carrying out and analyzing the procedures performed in a Geographic Information System (GIS) to manipulate geospatial data.

As shown in Figure 7, the Geoprocessing Analyst

may take on the roles of Data/Service Distributor,

Data and Metadata Aggregator/Integrator, and

Négociant. The community is responsible for

providing the geospatial data and services produced

by the Producers in SDI-Cemig.

The community is also responsible for

purchasing the geospatial data the users require, then

acting as a Négociant. Finally, the Geoprocessing

Analyst, when carrying out procedures on the

geospatial data in a GIS, is able to generate new

geospatial data or to expand existing data, thus

taking on the role of Data and Metadata

Aggregator/Integrator. Moreover, the IT will be in

charge of creating and maintaining the catalogs of

data and services made available by SDI-Cemig by

using user-produced metadata.

Cemig has several sectors that act in the

processes of electric energy generation,

transmission, and distribution. The generation

process consists in the generation of electricity

through power plants and Cemig has hydroelectric,

thermal, wind, and solar plants. Transmission

consists in a network that carries the energy

produced by the power plants to the large consuming

centers. Finally, distribution is the network that

serves energy to small- and medium-sized

companies and to residential consumers (Leão,

2009).

The generation, transmission, and distribution

groups are represented in Figure 8 by packages

comprising all the sectors related to each group.

Since there is a large number of sectors related to

each group, they are represented by the communities

Generation, Transmission, and Distribution. Besides

these communities, each group has a Geospatial

Data Manager and a Representative.

Each group has its Spatial Data Manager

community, which is responsible for guaranteeing

data consistency for each group, hence it takes on

the role of Database Administrator. However, it

must be pointed out that Cemig has a position called

Database Administrator, although its role is different

from the one defined by Cooper et al. (2011). At

Cemig, the position Database Administrator is in

charge of guaranteeing that the database and the

hardware supporting it are in order.

The community Representative is a generic

community used to illustrate the individuals that

represent the interests of each group in the

community Committee. Finally, each group has a

homonymous community (Generation,

Transmission, and Distribution) that represents the

different sectors at Cemig that work directly or

indirectly with the data of that group. The

communities Generation, Transmission, and

Distribution are considered Official Production

Agencies since they are the main data producers in

SDI-Cemig and since their sectors belong to Cemig.

These communities are also responsible for

publicizing the data they produce in the SDI, thus

taking on the role of A Producer that is its own

Data/Service Provider.

SDI-Cemig interacts with other communities

besides those within Cemig itself by interacting with

other SDIs and organizations, as shown in Figure 9.

The community of the Instituto Brasileiro de

Geografia e Estatística (Brazilian Institute of

Geography and Statistics - IBGE) is the federal

public organ that produces nationwide geospatial

data, besides being responsible for defining the

standards to be used by the other geospatial-data-

producing organizations, thus taking on the role of

Producer. The data produced by the IBGE are

publicized through the INDE. SDI-Cemig interacts

with the INDE and recovers the data available

through web services, which makes the INDE a

Provider of SDI-Cemig.

Besides the INDE, SDI-Cemig will obtain and

publicize information to the Sistema de Informações

Geográficas do Setor Elétrico (Geographic

Information System of the Power Sector - SIGEL)

belonging to the Agência Nacional de Energia

Elétrica (National Electric Energy Agency -

ANEEL). ANEEL is responsible for regulating and

overseeing the Brazilian electric energy market to

guarantee that the companies working in the country

follow the regulations in effect. The SIGEL is a

system that allows the visualization and obtention of

some geospatial data made available by the utility

companies to ANEEL. Therefore, ANEEL takes on

the role of User in SDI-Cemig by recovering the

data through the GeoPortal or through web services,

while the SIGEL takes on the role of Data Provider

by making available to SDI-Cemig the data provided

to ANEEL by the other utility companies.

Figure 7: Geoprocesing Analyst Community and its respective roles.

3.2 Viewpoint Information

As well as in the viewpoint Enterprise, the

components defined by Hjelmager et al. (2008) for

the viewpoint Information, shown in Figure 5 in sub-

section 2.2, are identified in SDI-Cemig.

According to Linington et al. (2011), the

viewpoint Information is responsible for “modeling

the shared information that is handled by the

system.” Therefore, the invariant scheme of the

geospatial database used in SDI-Cemig is modeled.

The dynamic and static schemes are not modeled

because SDI-Cemig, having only geospatial data,

contains little or no dynamically generated data due

to an action. When geospatial data are represented in

alphanumeric format, comparing them to the original

data to check whether the representation is

consistent becomes difficult.

According to Hjelmager et al. (2008), the model

presented in Figure 5 begins with the component

Policies, which defines the basic geospatial data

(layers) the SDI must have, besides allowing the link

with the viewpoint Enterprise. The basic data SDI-

Cemig has are described in the policies Foundation.

It must be pointed out that much of the data in SDI-

Cemig are related to the electricity generation,

transmission, and distribution.

The members of SDI-Cemig may request new

products (data and services) by opening a ticket with

Cemig’s helpdesk, being limited by the policies.

Such tickets are considered the products’

specifications (component Product Specification).

The Products are described by Metadata, which

allows the users to assess whether the product meets

their needs, besides facilitating searching for them.

According to the policy Legal Constraints “Adoção

do Decreto de Lei Nº 6.666 – Uso do perfil MGB

para a documentação de metadados geoespaciais

produzidos em território nacional,” the products in

SDI-Cemig will be described using metadata

documented following the specification of the MGB

profile (CONCAR, 2009).

Both Metadata and Products will be recorded in

a Catalog to aid in their discovery. The catalogs will

be created according to the topics of the geospatial

data offered by SDI-Cemig such as hydrography,

generation, transmission, distribution, infrastructure,

etc. According to the model in Figure 5, the data

generate information based on pre-established

knowledge. In SDI-Cemig, the data are used to

generate information used by the different sectors at

Cemig through reports and maps. Such information

is generated based on the knowledge of employees

specialized in geoprocessing, usually Geoprocessing

Analysts.

Figure 8: Groups Generation, Transmission, and Distribution with their respective communities and roles.

3.2.1 Conceptual Database Modeling

According to Béjar et al. (2012), the policies of

the type Foundation define the basic data and

services the SDI must have. However, only the

database description is not able to show the

relationship among the data or how they will behave

in the system, which is one of the goals the

viewpoint Information aims to represent.

Figure 10 presents the conceptual scheme of the

database adopted by SDI-Cemig. Due to space

constraints, only the layers related to electricity

generation, transmission, and distribution will be

represented.

The UML class diagram extended with

geographical and topological builders of the OMT-G

(Borges, Davis Jr. and Laender, 2001) was used to

create the scheme.

The package Distribution Grid has layers related

to Cemig’s regional distribution grid and layers that

help manage this grid. The layer

Malha_Regional_Distribuicao represents the limit

of the distribution areas, which contain a

headquarters (Malha_Regional_Sede) inside them.

The business units (Unidades_Negocio) are areas

defined according to the type of business Cemig

intends to establish in a given region, which aids in

planning and in the decision-making process. As

well as the regional grid, the business units have a

headquarters (Unidades-Negocio_Sede).

The area where Cemig can work in the state of

Minas Gerais, negotiated with the state’s

government, is represented by the class

Areas_Concessao_Distribuicao, while the class

Local_Cemig_Concessao represents the area where

Cemig is currently working. To help in the decision-

making process, Cemig has divided the state of

Minas Gerais into several regions called

transmission regions (Regionais_Transmissao). As

well as the distribution grid, the transmission regions

are divided according to criteria that meet the

company’s business rules.

The packages Generation, Transmission, and

Distribution contain the classes that represent the

elements that make up the electric grid administered

by Cemig. Cemig’s electric grid nodes comprise

structures, namely Estruturas_LT for Generation,

Estrutura_LT_230-500 for Transmission, and

Estrutura_LT_34-161 for Distribution. The classes

Vao_LT, Vao_LT_230-500, and Vao_LT_34-161

represent, respectively, the arcs of Generation,

Transmission, and Distribution.

Figure 9: External communities that interact with SDI-Cemig.

The structures that make up the Generation

nodes comprise power plants, which can be

hydroelectric, wind, or solar (Usinas_Hidreletricas,

Usinas_Eolicas, Usinas_Solares, respectively), and

by Centrais_Geradoras_Hidreletricas, Subesta-

coes_Geracao, and Pequenas_Centrais_Hidre-

letricas. Although it is said in the subsection 3.1.2

that Cemig owns thermal power plants, they are not

considered, at the first moment, in the conceptual

model.

In Transmission, the only structures that make up

the network are the transmission sub-stations

(Subestacoes_Transmissao). In Distribution, the

structures comprise Postes (poles) and

Subestacoes_Distribuição. The poles may have a

transformer. Generation, Transmission, and

Distribution have, respectively, the classes

Linhas_Transmissao, Linhas_Transmissao_230-500,

and Linhas_Transmissao_34-161. These classes are

used to identify a portion of the network, which

must comprise at least an arc and its respectively

beginning and end nodes.

4 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The adapted ICA model proved appropriate to

describe the viewpoints Enterprise and Information

of SDI-Cemig. The differences found between the

model and the specification are due to the specific

characteristics of SDI-Cemig.

One such difference is that there are no

geoprocessing services. In the viewpoint Enterprise,

the lack of geoprocessing services impacts the

component Product, which cannot be self-related.

In addition, the existence of the component

Technology in ICA’s formal model contradicts the

goal of the viewpoint Enterprise in the RM-ODP

framework, which is to describe the system’s scope,

policies, and requirements. This contradiction can be

extended to the component Connectivity, however,

further studies are needed to state that.

Also regarding the viewpoint Enterprise, during

the specification of the actors in SDI-Cemig, the

concentration of positions in the IT community

becomes visible, which are responsible for providing

data to SDI-Cemig, performing maintenance in

smaller systems, negotiating new geospatial data,

and creating new policies. Many of these

responsibilities are beyond the scope IT should take

on in SDI-Cemig.

Figure 10: Layers related to the electric system and the distribution grid of the state of Minas Gerais from the conceptual scheme of SDI-Cemig’s database.

Regarding the policies, the ones related to the

type Governance have not been defined yet.

Moreover, other types of policies have a small

number of policies specified (usually a single policy

has been specified for each type).

The viewpoint Information of SDI-Cemig has all

the components specified by the adapted ICA model,

with no need to change their behavior or semantics.

Although the adapted ICA formal model

describes SDI at all levels and, thus, guarantees the

basic concepts in the literature are contemplated in

the specification phase, there is no description of

how the model should be used. For instance, how

many details are required to describe the

components of the viewpoint Enterprise, or what

could be considered a product specification?

5 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

Using the adapted ICA formal model allows the key

components of an SDI to be contemplated in the

design phase, besides allowing a better

understanding of the basic concepts such as the SDI

structure, who the users will be and what roles they

will take on when using an SDI, how the policies

will impact the SDI development, etc.

The viewpoints Enterprise and Information in

ICA’s formal model properly describe these

viewpoints in SDI-Cemig and, although the

specification of a single corporate SDI does not

ensure the model will be applicable at any corporate

level, it does indicate the viewpoints Enterprise and

Information in ICA’s formal model can be applied to

other corporate SDIs. Moreover, the present study

may help other designers wanting to use ICA’s

model to specify new SDIs regardless of their level.

As future works, we intend to specify the

viewpoint Computation in SDI-Cemig to verify

whether it is in accordance with the viewpoint

Computation specified in the adapted ICA model.

Acknowledgements

This project was partially funded by the Brazilian

research promotion agencies Fapemig and CAPES,

along with Cemig Enterprise.

REFERENCES

Béjar, R., Latre, M. Á., Nogueras-Isso, J., Muro-Medrano,

P., R., Zarazaga-Soria, F., J., 2012. An RM-ODP

Enterprise View for Spatial Data Infrastructure.

Computer Standards & Interfaces, v. 34, n. 2, p. 263-

272.

Borges, K. A. V., Davis Jr., C. A., Laender, A. H. F.,

2001. OMT-G: An Object-Oriented Data Model for

Geographic Applications. Geoinformatica, v. 5, n. 3,

p. 221-260.

CONCAR – Comissão Nacional de Cartografia, 2009.

Perfil de Metadados Geoespaciais do Brasil (Perfil

MGB). Available at: http://www.concar.ibge.gov.br/

arquivo/perfil_mgb_final_v1_homologado.pdf.

Cooper, A. K., Moellering, H., Hjelmager, J., et al., 2013.

A Spatial Data Infrastructure Model from the

Computational Viewpoint. International Journal of

Geographical Information Science, v. 27, n. 6, p.

1133-1151.

Cooper, A. K., Rapant, P., Hjelmager, J., et al., 2011.

Extending the Formal Model of a Spatial Data

Infrastructure to Include Volunteered Geographical

Information. 25th Cartographic Conference (ICC).

Crompvoet, J., 2011. Spatial Data Infrastructure and

Public Sector. Available at: http://www.spatialist.be/

eng/act/pdf/20111107_sdi_intro.pdf.

Farooqui, K., Logrippo, L., De Meer, J., 1995. The ISO

Reference Model for Open Distributed Processing:

and introduction. Computer Networks and ISDN

Systems, v. 27, n. 8, p. 1215-1229.

Harvey, F., Iwaniak, A., Coetzee, S., Cooper, A., K., 2012.

SDI past, present and future: a review and status

assessment. Spatially Enabling Government, Industry

and Citizens.

Hjelmager, J., Moellering, H., Cooper, A. K., et al., 2008.

An Initial Formal model for Spatial Data

Infrastructure. International Journal of Geographic

Information Science, v. 22, n. 11-12, p. 1295-1309.

Leão, R., 2009. GTD – Geração, Transmissão e

Distribuição de Energia Elétrica. Universidade Federal

do Ceará, Centro de Tecnologia, Departamento de

Engenharia Elétrica. Available at:

http://www.clubedaeletronica.com.br/Eletricidade/PD

F/Livro%20GTD.pdf. (in Portuguese)

Linington, P. F., Milosevic, Z., Tanaka, A., Vallecilo, A.,

2011. Building Enterprise Systems with ODP: An

Introduction to Open Distributed Processing. CRC

Press.

Nebert, D., D., Techinical Working Group Chair GSDI,

2004. Developing Spatial Data Infrastructures: The

SDI Cookbook. V.2. GSDI – Global Spatial Data

Infrastructure. Available at: http://www.gsdi.org/

docs2004/Cookbook/cookbookV2.0.pdf.

Oliveira, I. L., Lisboa-Filho, J., 2015. A Spatial Data

Infrastructure Review – Sorting the Actors and

Policies from Enterprise Viewpoint. Proceedings of

the 17th International Conference on Enterprise

Information Systems, v. 17, p. 287-294.

Rajabifard, A., Williamson, I., P., 2001. Spatial Data

Infrastructures: concept, SDI hierarchy and future

directions. Proc. of GEOMATICS Conference, p. 10.

Raymond, K., 1995. Reference Model for Open

Distributed Processing (RM-ODP): Introduction. Open

Distributed Processing, p. 3-14.